I am sick of hearing about the 86 Bears

[Lansdowne]

Brady would've picked apart the 46 defense.

 

[Steamer86]

I think 1985 was a very down year in NFL. Skins, Giants, Dallas and San Fran were all 10-6. Good, but certainly nothing to write home about that year. Rams were next best team in NFC with 11 wins and making it to the NFC championship with Deiter Brock at QB.
2007 was a year that had an unusually large number of good teams. From the AFC, the Colts, Jags, Chargers and Steelers were all better than that Rams team. Even the 07 Browns may have been better than squad...in the NFC Dallas, GB were very good all year and obviously the Giants were high quality in NFC this year ..and as much as I hate to say it, that Pats team was one of the worst teams to make the bowl with Eason and Berry running the show. So I really think we beat tougher opponents this year and they had a relatively easy ride in 1985-86. I think they could be shut down with Willie "Bethel Johnson/Tony Simmons" Gault and Dennis McKinnon as their big threats.

That said, they did dominate that season on defense. I guess I just can't stand Ditka and his bully attitude. I am glad that Buddy Ryan (another jerk) gets a lot of the credit. It pisses Ditka off. I can't wait for next year when Tedy retires and gets hired by ESPN and they do their little football lesson on that mini field and Ditka plays Antonio Gates going over the middle and Bruschi lays him out, but then of course offers him a hand up....

 

[Gumby]

That was a sad year for the SB for me. I felt that ruined the pats reputation nationally for a long time - til the bledsoe era.

One thing to note about the Bears scoring over 30 a game is that their defense was really so good. Not only did it put up a lot of points per game; but it put their offense on a short field position so often.

It would be an interesting game to have them face each other. But as someone else said comparisons of different eras is impossible - the players are bigger and faster today. (course they took more steroids back then so they might have been stronger then )
...... I would think that since the only team that beat them was Miami's passing offense - and our passing offense is statistically better than Marino's that Pats would be able to hold their own offensively. I think our Defense today would deal with sweetness and mcmahon better than the 86 crew did.

But who knows - back then you could mug the receivers more than you can today too. would that help us or hurt us -

 

[sanvara]

How freaking stupid is that?!? It's the '85 Bears first of all. Second, times and technology have definitely changed the way players are trained and healed. Are you serious? It's like saying that Steven Hawking would whoop Albert Einstein in a science fair.

Haha..nice analogy. Times have changed, rules have changed, technology has changed etc. You are absolutely right, you just can't compare across eras.

 

[aluminum seats]

The common theme here seems to be "you can't compare teams from different eras," which is all well and good except that people do that all the time. The constantly repeated phrase this year has been "are the pats the greatest team of all-time?" with endless discussions of that, so while obviously the teams can't play, the discussion can and does take place.

So in that spirit, I'll play along. The '85 Bears were NOT unbeatable that year--they got beat. And I have little doubt that the Pats would beat them as well, in much the same fashion, at least offensively. Defensively, these Pats are better, and better coached, than that Miami team, so I don't think it would be as close.

 

[IndyKen]

Brady would've picked apart the 46 defense.

That's what Mike Ditka said a number of weeks ago on the ESPN pre- game. He said they would have spread us out with 4-5 wides and Brady would have "picked us apart". Our D would have easily contained that Bear offense too. As good as they were , the '07 Patriots would have won that game going away IMO.

 

[italian pat patriot]

it's always difficult to compare the NFL dated 1985 with today's NFL

surely 1985 CHI Bears were the best team (it was impossible for us to win it) and their defense was one of the best i remember

but, again, i do not think we can compare; just my opinion

 

[sdaniels7114]

I think its fair to say that Brady would pick apart the '85 Bears playing the 4-6 defense. I just don't think any coach today would put that exceptional group of players in the 4-6. Their front 4 was exceptional at penetrating all by themselves. That's a tremendous foundation to build on. Now add in those Linebackers.

What put them near the top as a unit might have been some temporary 4-6 smoke and mirrors, but even if they played the 10-1, 1-10 or even the 'everyone just do whatever you feel like doing' defense, they would have been formidable. Too much talent.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I think its fair to say that Brady would pick apart the '85 Bears playing the 4-6 defense. I just don't think any coach today would put that exceptional group of players in the 4-6. Their front 4 was exceptional at penetrating all by themselves. That's a tremendous foundation to build on. Now add in those Linebackers.

What put them near the top as a unit might have been some temporary 4-6 smoke and mirrors, but even if they played the 10-1, 1-10 or even the 'everyone just do whatever you feel like doing' defense, they would have been formidable. Too much talent.

That defense was obviously talented, but I think it was the new 46 scheme that made them so tough at the time. After a year or so, offenses caught up with it and it wasn't so tough any more.

You have to give Ryan credit for being ahead of everyone for a year or so, but the fact they couldn't sustain it showed it was more of a flash in the pan. Now that history has figured out the 46 and more or less discredited it, even if you could somehow adjust the Bears players sizes up to today's standards, NE would pick apart that defense. There's really no way to out-scheme the Pats offense in a SB with 2 weeks to prepare.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I think its fair to say that Brady would pick apart the '85 Bears playing the 4-6 defense. I just don't think any coach today would put that exceptional group of players in the 4-6. Their front 4 was exceptional at penetrating all by themselves. That's a tremendous foundation to build on. Now add in those Linebackers.

What put them near the top as a unit might have been some temporary 4-6 smoke and mirrors, but even if they played the 10-1, 1-10 or even the 'everyone just do whatever you feel like doing' defense, they would have been formidable. Too much talent.

This was actually put to the test the following year. Buddy Ryan left after SB20 to coach the Eagles so Vince Tobin became the Bears' DC for the '86 season. Vince scrapped the 46 in favor of more conventional 4-3 defenses. The '86 Bears D surpassed the '85 D statistically in both yards allowed and points allowed as the team went 14-2 almost exclusively on the back of the D due to the offensive struggles that season (QB issues galore). Indeed that D was talented.

What people forget is that in both years the CBs were mediocre. A team with a good passing game that could give their QB time could pick on that secondary. Miami did it in '85 and Washington did it in the Bears' first playoff game the following year. The 2007 Pats' offense is tailor-made to attack the '85/'86 Bears D.

Regards,
Chris

 

[the taildragger]

Thanx for posting this....couldn't agree more.

first off, all the players admitted they felt relieved to have lost a game, because it took a lot of pressure off them in the playoffs.

second, they didn't lose to Miami because of a let down....that game was a HUGE Monday night game with tons of hype (the 72 fins were in attendance)....they lost because it was a bad match up for them.

Had Miami made it to the SB that year it would've been a ring for Marino....a rematch would've been the Bears worst nightmare, they were so relieved that we took care fo the Fins for them.

The 07 Pats have been able to match up with EVERY opponent, no matter how they are attacked. They have been surprised and have been able to adapt, they have been at times worn out but overcame all.

You can't be predictable against the Pats offense with the blitz....our offense would've been a terrible match up for the 85 Bears....the Pats would've put 50 on the board before half time....bombs away.

And I'm sick of hearing how much more "dominant" they were. One team has the largest average point differential for a season, 07 Pats, and they did it despite facing 8 of the 11 other playoff teams....winning each game. case closed.

it's nostalgia....For Dr. Z to suggest the 07 Pats aren't even in the discussion as greatest team, you can't tell me that doesn't expose a clear anti-Pats bias....whether he doesn't like the coach or his media policies or is jealous or just looking for attention or all of the above.

 

[djmika760]

Thanx for posting this....couldn't agree more.

first off, all the players admitted they felt relieved to have lost a game, because it took a lot of pressure off them in the playoffs.

second, they didn't lose to Miami because of a let down....that game was a HUGE Monday night game with tons of hype (the 72 fins were in attendance)....they lost because it was a bad match up for them.

Had Miami made it to the SB that year it would've been a ring for Marino....a rematch would've been the Bears worst nightmare, they were so relieved that we took care fo the Fins for them.

The 07 Pats have been able to match up with EVERY opponent, no matter how they are attacked. They have been surprised and have been able to adapt, they have been at times worn out but overcame all.

You can't be predictable against the Pats offense with the blitz....our offense would've been a terrible match up for the 85 Bears....the Pats would've put 50 on the board before half time....bombs away.

And I'm sick of hearing how much more "dominant" they were. One team has the largest average point differential for a season, 07 Pats, and they did it despite facing 8 of the 11 other playoff teams....winning each game. case closed.

it's nostalgia....For Dr. Z to suggest the 07 Pats aren't even in the discussion as greatest team, you can't tell me that doesn't expose a clear anti-Pats bias....whether he doesn't like the coach or his media policies or is jealous or just looking for attention or all of the above.

Pats are the greatest team of this era. Bears were the greatest team of that era. The '71 Chevy Chevelle was the greatest domestic of that era. The Corvette Z06 is the greatest domestic of this era. Do you see how out of wack the comparison is now? Pioneering a "great" before todays technology holds more water with a lot of older folks...get it? Ask an old school muscle car guy.

 

[Ring 6]

The measure of a team is what they do in the playoffs.

Margin of victory is not even close in the playoffs comparing Pats vs Bears. The Bears had a 27 point differential per game.

Margin of victory is not a meaningful statistic when you are talking about Champions.
The game is about winning. How much you win by is severely overrated.

 

[sanvara]

Margin of victory is not a meaningful statistic when you are talking about Champions.
The game is about winning. How much you win by is severely overrated.

The Bears won the championship that year. That's a given. They did it by utterly dominating their playoff competition like no team has ever done. Two shutouts and allowing 3 points a game in the playoffs is an absolutely insane accomplishment. They made a mockery of the playoffs. Every team they played it was men against boys. The Bears had a fantastic regular season at 15-1, but what you do in the playoffs is what matters, and no team has been more impressive at the most important time.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

The Bears won the championship that year. That's a given. They did it by utterly dominating their playoff competition like no team has ever done. Two shutouts and allowing 3 points a game in the playoffs is an absolutely insane accomplishment. They made a mockery of the playoffs. What you do in the playoffs is much more important and impressive than what you do in the regular season.

True. But in one game that year THEY were utterly dominated. That's gotta count for something, no?

 

[Steamer86]

Pats are the greatest team of this era. Bears were the greatest team of that era. The '71 Chevy Chevelle was the greatest domestic of that era. The Corvette Z06 is the greatest domestic of this era. Do you see how out of wack the comparison is now? Pioneering a "great" before todays technology holds more water with a lot of older folks...get it? Ask an old school muscle car guy.

I think the 89 Niners were the best team of that era....Montana, Craig, Rathman, Rice, Taylor, Brent Jones and a stellar OL would have been able to spread that D score. And the 49er D of Haley, Keena Turner, Ronnie Lott, Romo, Eric Wright and Tim McKyer, Pierce Holt, Matt Millen...was pretty damn good. They were 14-2, with losses of 1 and 4 points. In playoffs they won by 126-26 for a margin of 33 points per game.

 

[sanvara]

True. But in one game that year THEY were utterly dominated. That's gotta count for something, no?

A meaningless regular season game that was a blip in the radar when you stack it up against utterly dominating playoff performance when it mattered. The Bears just smothered and suffocated life out of their playoff opponents with overwhelming defensive force.

 

[Steamer86]

The Bears averaged 30 in the playoffs and gave up 3. That's a 27 point differential per playoff game. The Pats played their best ball in the first part of the regular season. The Bears played their best ball in the playoffs and Superbowl dominating the best competition.

89 Niners averaged 42 and won by average of 33 in playoffs. I guess they were the best then...

 

[sanvara]

89 Niners averaged 42 and won by average of 33 in playoffs. I guess they were the best then...

You could argue that if you want to but a defense that gives up 3 points a game to playoff opponents is a little more impressive to me. The Bears scored 30 a game in the playoffs and gave up 3. I think if you translated the Bears defensive performance to the Niners offense it would be on par with scoring 60 a game in the playoffs.

 

[NormZauchin]

Unprepared yes. Inept no. John Hannah was on D& C this morning and said the '85 Pats had won nine games in a row under Grogan that year relying primarily on the run. The playoffs culminated in a 31-14 win in MIA in the AFCCG where, amazingly, he said the Pats rushed less than ten times the entire game! He said most of the players were ecstatic that Grogan was cleared as healthy for the SB and wanted him to start ahead of Eason. The coaches saw it differently and panicked. They decided to go away from what had got them there and come out pass happy in the SB with Eason slinging it around. You know the rest of the story. Very interesting prospective from a former all time greast player.

Let me first say that I like Steve Grogan and that I do not think that Tony Eason was a great quarterback. However, Eason has been demonized to an extent that is not warranted by his performance. In the three playoff games leading up to the 86 Superbowl, Eason had quarterback ratings of 132 (vs the NYJs), 102 (vs the Raiders), and 131 (vs Miami). In those games he threw a total of 5 TDs and NO interceptions. After taking over for Eason, against the Bears, Grogan threw for 1 TD, and 2 interceptions. His QB rating was 57 for the game. The Patriots were not going to win no matter who started, but Eason's perfomance in the three preceeding playoff games was strong enough for the coaching staff to pick him to start the Superbowl.

By the way, in the next season, when Eason led the Patriots to a division title and an 11-5 record, they lost their first playoff game to the Broncos, but Eason's QB rating in that game was 109, with 2 TDs and again NO interceptions. His career playoff QB rating (including the disaster of the Superbowl was 115.6 - better than Brady's 88.5 playoff QB rating! Grogan's QB rating in 4 playoff games was 49.1.

Before anyone says that this just proves statistics are meaningless when evaluating QBs, I will agree that Tony Eason in no way compares with Tom Brady. But I don't think that difference in actual production between Eason and Grogan is significant. People like Grogan more because of his attitude.